The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) around April 28, 2016, the Defendant: (b) damaged a small wave in the room on the ground that: (c) around 21:00, the Defendant entered the room (hereinafter “instant room”); (d) “E” operated by the Victim D (F, G, and H) under the ground that the Defendant did not provide the service of singing time; and (e) caused damage to the market value by tearing the teared property in a bit method.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010).

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1. First, there is no person who does not have tear, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it.

The victim did not have any error in the so-called spath before using the defendant's spath, and only the defendant showed negeneous attitude during the defendant's working. Therefore, the defendant is presumed to tear the so-called spath.

② It is not clear that Defendant’s practice did not have any error in the instant lawsuit prior to the use of the instant singing.

Of course, the witness H and G, other than the victim, did not tear when first entered the room of this case.

consistently.